skip to main content
research-article

A Case Study of the Introduction of Computer Science in NZ Schools

Published:01 June 2014Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

For many years computing in New Zealand schools was focused on teaching students how to use computers, and there was little opportunity for students to learn about programming and computer science as formal subjects. In this article we review a series of initiatives that occurred from 2007 to 2009 that led to programming and computer science being made available formally as part of the National Certificate in Educational Achievement (NCEA), the main school-leaving assessment, in 2011. The changes were phased in from 2011 to 2013, and we review this process using the Darmstadt model, including describing the context of the school system, the socio-cultural factors in play before, during and after the changes, the nature of the new standards, the reactions and roles of the various stakeholders, and the teaching materials and methods that developed. The changes occurred very quickly, and we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of having such a rapid process. In all these changes, teachers have emerged as having a central role, as they have been key in instigating and implementing change.

References

  1. Owen Astrachan, Ralph Morelli, Dwight Barnette, and Jeff Gray. 2012. CS principles: Piloting a national course. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 319--320. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Tim Bell, Peter Andreae, and Lynn Lambert. 2010. Computer science in New Zealand high schools. In Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Australasian Computing Education (ACE’10). Tony Clear and John Hamer Eds., vol. 32, Australian Computer Society, Inc., Brisbane, Australia, 15--22. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Tim Bell, Peter Andreae, and Anthony Robins. 2012. Computer science in NZ high schools: The first year of the new standards. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Laurie A. Smith King, David R. Musicant, Tracy Camp, and Paul Tymann Eds., ACM, New York, 343--348. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Tim Bell, Gwenda Bensemann, and Ian H Witten. 1995. Computer science unplugged: Capturing the interest of the uninterested. In Proceedings of the 14th New Zealand Computer Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Tim Bell and Lynn Lambert. 2011. Teaching computer science majors about teaching computer science. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’11). ACM, New York, 541--546. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Tim Bell, Heidi Newton, Peter Andreae, and Anthony Robins. 2012a. The introduction of computer science to NZ high schools: An analysis of student work. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE’12). ACM, New York, 5--15. DOI:http:/dx.doi.org/10.1145/2481449.2481454. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Tim Bell, Frances Rosamond, and Nancy Casey. 2012b. Computer science unplugged and related projects in math and computer science popularization. In The Multivariate Algorithmic Revolution and Beyond: Essays Dedicated to Michael R. Fellows on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday, Hans L. Bodlaender, Rod Downey, Fedor V. Fomin, and Daniel Marx Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7370, Springer, 398--456. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/citation.cfm?id=22344236. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Lenore Blum and Thomas J. Cortina. 2007. CS4HS: An outreach program for high school CS teachers. In Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’07). Ingrid Russell, Susan M. Haller, J. D. Dougherty, and Susan H. Rodger Eds., ACM, 19--23. http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/sigcse/sigcse2007.html#BlumC07. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Heather Bort and Dennis Brylow. 2013. CS4Impact: Measuring computational thinking concepts present in CS4HS participant lesson plans. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’13). ACM, New York, 427--432. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2445196.2445323. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. M. E. Brown. 1998. The Use of Computers in New Zealand schools: A critical review. Computers in New Zealand Schools 10, 3, 3--9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Tim Carrell, Vilna Gough-Jones, and Karen Fahy. 2008. The future of computer science and digital technologies in New Zealand secondary schools: Issues of 21st teaching and learning, senior courses and suitable assessments. Tech. Rep. http://dtg.tki.org.nz/content/download/670/3222/file/DigitalTechnologiesdiscussionpaper.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Lillian Cassel, Alan Clements, Gordon Davies, Mark Guzdial, Renée McCauley, Andrew McGettrick, Bob Sloan, Larry Snyder, Paul Tymann, and B. Weide. 2008. Computer science curriculum 2008: An interim revision of CS 2001. Report from the interim review task force. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Tony Clear and Graham Bidois. 2005. Technology FITNZ : An ICT curriculum meta-framework for New Zealand high schools. Bull. Appl. Computing Inf. Tech. 3, 3. http://www.naccq.ac.nz/bacit/0303/2005Clear_FITNZ.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Vicki Compton and Bev France. 2007. Towards a new technological literacy: Curriculum development with a difference. Curriculum Matters 3, 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Vicki Compton and Cliff Harwood. 2003. Enhancing technological practice: An assessment framework for technology education in New Zealand. Int. J. Tech. Des. Educ. 13, 1, 1--26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Vicki Compton and Alister Jones. 1998. Reflecting on teacher development in technology education: Implications for future programmes. Int. J. Tech. Des. Educ. 8, 2, 151--166.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Peter J. Denning and Andrew McGettrick. 2005. Recentering computer science. Commun. ACM 48, 11, 15--19. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1096000.1096018. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Steve Furber (Ed.). 2012. Shut down or restart? The way forward for computing in UK schools. Royal Society, London. http://royalsociety.org/education/policy/computing-in-schools/report/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Judith Gal-Ezer, Orit Hazzan, and Noa Ragonis. 2009. Preparation of high school computer science teachers. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 41, 1, 269. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1539024.1508965. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Sandy Garner, Patricia Haden, and Anthony Robins. 2005. My program is correct but it doesn’t run: A preliminary investigation of novice programmers’ problems. In Proceedings of the 7th Australasian Conference on Computing Education. Australian Computer Society, Inc., 173--180. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Joanna Goode and Jane Margolis. 2011. Exploring computer science. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 11, 2, 1--16. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1993069.1993076. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Gordon Grimsey and Margot Phillipps. 2008. Evaluation of technology achievement standards for use in New Zealand secondary school computing education. Technical Rep. New Zealand Computer Society, Wellington. http://www.nzcs.org.nz/news/uploads/PDFs/200805NCEAReport.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Peter Hubwieser, Michal Armoni, Torsten Brinda, Valentina Dagiene, Ira Diethelm, Michail N. Giannakos, Maria Knobelsdorf, Johannes Magenheim, Roland Mittermeir, and Sigrid Schubert. 2011. Computer science/informatics in secondary education. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education-Working Group Reports. ACM, 19--38. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Neal Koblitz. 1996. The case against computers in K-13 math education (Kindergarten through calculus). Math. Intelligencer 18, 1, 9--16. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03024811.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Orni Meerbaum-Salant, Michal Armoni, and Mordechai Ben-Ari. 2011. Habits of programming in scratch. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Joint Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’11). ACM, New York, 168--172. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1999747.1999796. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Sumant Murugesh, Tim Bell, and Ann McGrath. 2010. A review of computer science resources to support NCEA. In Proceedings of the 1st Annual Conference of Computing and Information Technology Research and Education NZ (CITRENZ’10). Samuel Mann and Michael Veerhaart Eds., 173--181.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Lijun Ni and Mark Guzdial. 2012. Who AM I? Understanding high school computer science teachers’ professional identity. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 499--504. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Richard E. Pattis. 1988. Textbook errors in binary searching. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 20, 1, 190--194. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/52965.53012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Noa Ragonis, Orit Hazzan, and Judith Gal-Ezer. 2010. A survey of computer science teacher preparation programs in Israel tells us: computer science deserves a designated high school teacher preparation! In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’10). ACM, New York, 401--405. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1734263.1734402. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Anthony Robins. 2010. Learning edge momentum: A new account of outcomes. Comput. Sci. Educ. 20, 37--71. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.167.651.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Anthony Robins, Janet Rountree, and Nathan Rountree. 2003. Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Comput. Sci. Educ. 13, 2, 137--172.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Nathan Rountree, Janet Rountree, Anthony Robins, and Robert Hannah. 2004. Interacting factors that predict success and failure in a CS1 course. In ACM SIGCSE Bull. 36. ACM, 101--104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Mehran Sahami, Steve Roach, Ernesto Cuadros-Vargas, and Richard LeBlanc. 2013. {ACM/IEEE-CS} computer science curriculum 2013: Reviewing the Ironman report. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’13). ACM, New York, 13--14. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2445196.2445206. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Philip Sallis, D. Ferguson, A. Frampton, V. Ham, A. Milne, T. McMahon, L. Parker, N. Parker, and V. Ramsay. 1990. Report of the Consultative Committee on Information Technology in the school curriculum.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Val Savidan. 2003. ICT and the New Zealand secondary school curriculum. ACE Papers 12, 123--144.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. David Thompson and Tim Bell. 2013. Adoption of new Computer Science high school standards by New Zealand teachers. In Proceedings of the 8th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE’13). Maria Knobelsdorf, Ralf Romeike, and Michael E. Caspersen Eds., ACM. http://www.iitp.org.nz/files/wipsce-teachers-2013.pdf. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. David Thompson, Tim Bell, Peter Andreae, and Anthony Robins. 2013. The role of teachers in implementing curriculum changes. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’13). ACM, Denver, CO, 245--250. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Allen B. Tucker. 2010. K-12 Computer science: Aspirations, realities, and challenges. In Teaching Fundamentals Concepts of Informatics, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5941, Juraj Hromkovic, Richard Kralovic, and Jan Vahrenhold Eds., Springer, Chapter Teaching F, 22--34. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Charles R. Woratschek and Terri L. Lenox. 2009. Student attitudes and perceptions regarding computing and its related disciplines. Inf. Syst. Educ. J. 7, 58, 3--22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Seung Wook Yoo, Yong Chul Yeum, Yong Kim, Seung Eun Cha, Jong Hye Kim, Hye Sun Jang, Sook Kyong Choi, Hwan Cheol Lee, Dai Young Kwon, Hee Seop Han, Eun Mi Shin, Jae Shin Song, Jong Eun Park, and Won Gyu Lee. 2006. Development of an integrated informatics curriculum for K-12 in Korea. In Informatics Education: The Bridge between Using and Understanding Computers, Roland Mittermeir Ed., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4226. Springer, 199--208. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/11915355-19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A Case Study of the Introduction of Computer Science in NZ Schools

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Computing Education
      ACM Transactions on Computing Education  Volume 14, Issue 2
      Special Issue on Computing Education in (K-12) Schools
      June 2014
      180 pages
      EISSN:1946-6226
      DOI:10.1145/2642651
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2014 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 1 June 2014
      • Accepted: 1 April 2014
      • Revised: 1 March 2014
      • Received: 1 March 2013
      Published in toce Volume 14, Issue 2

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF2602485.2.pdf

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader